zlacker

> The second group is one that thinks talking to a chatbot will replace senior developer

No one is going to replace senior developers. But senior developer pay WILL decrease relative to its historical values.

>>netdev+(OP)
Surely making use of a new tool that makes you more productive would increase your value rather than decreasing it? Especially when, knowing the kinds of mistakes AI could make that would affect your codebase negatively in terms of maintainability, security etc would require significant experience.

>>netdev+(OP)
Not really. If pay decreases it's because you're not required anymore or less, which is contrary to what has been shown. IF educating and enabling juniors etc. is not handled correctly, then senior pay will explode, because whilst they are much more efficient, their inherent knowledge is required to produce sustainable results.

>>sharpe+m
> Surely making use of a new tool that makes you more productive would increase your value rather than decreasing it?

Think wider. You, sharperguy, are not and will not the only person with access to these tools. Therefore, your productivity increase will likely be the same as everyone else's. If you are as good as everyone else, why would YOU get paid more? Have you ever seen a significant number of companies outside FAANG permanently boost everyone's salary just because they they did well on a given year?

A company's goal is to the shareholders not to you. Your value exists relative to that of others.

>>RicDan+f7
> If pay decreases it's because you're not required anymore or less

Not necessarily, there are many factors at play here which are downplayed. The first one is education: LLMs are going to significantly improve skill training. Arguably, it is already happening. So the gap between you and a middev will get narrower. At the same time, candidates who can be as good as you will increase.

While you can argue that you possess specialised skills that not many do, you are unlikely to prove that under pressure within a couple of hours and certainly not to the level where you can have late 10s level of negotiating power imo.

At the end of the day, the market can stay irrational longer than you can continue refuse to accept a lower offer imo. I believe there will be winners. But pure technical skill isn't the moat you think it is. Not anymore.

>>netdev+9T
> If you are as good as everyone else, why would YOU get paid more?

If every coal miner could suddenly produce 10x the amount of goal, do people say "well now we can just hire one coal miner instead of 10". Or do they say "now thousands of new project which were not economically viable due to the high price of coal are now viable, meaning we actually need to increase our total output beyond even 10x of what it was previously."

>>sharpe+jd8
Coal miners are cheap, easy to replace and have little negotiation power. Devs are expensive, harder to replace and have some leverage. Coal miners can take a pick or an axe with them when they leave. Devs can take away with them valuable operational knowledge with them that can bring to a competitor. Not comparable.

Plus, look at the job market. Every single tech company out there has been laying off devs in the last 3 years. If maximising productivity above expenses was so valuable, every tech company out there would be hiring like crazy because senior devs are cheap as chips nowadays. But they aren't, devs might be cheap but money itself isn't right now so they are prioritising lower expenses over increased productivity. Because that makes shareholders happy. And that's what every company aims for.

Maximising productivity is only an absolute goal in the minds of devs not in the minds of executives.